I am worried about what they said about space battles in the interview

Note To Everyone this is just some feedback from me a long time veteran player of this genera ( I know I am not the only one who played MoO)

As a gamer this is obviously a big part of the game we will want to enjoy after building and researching for lengthy games we want to see these big carriers launcher an army of interceptors OR shoot the many different weapons we see in other games lasers, rail guns, quark cannons, point defense vs fighters,

I hope you change your mind of the emphasis you put on battles otherwise you might just make a big mistake

if that you will not profit as much as you could form this game if the players don't see it as a must play again type of game

(don't want to see players getting bored with the game is all im saying after a play through and they think to themselves wow I wish they put more effort into this battle system COULD HAVE BEEN A GREAT GAME)

I played with possibly a thousand different players in these type games and yes we enjoy the space strategy and empire building but we also want to get into some battles and use tactics and special weapons to gain the upper hand

"But we don’t want to mislead people – Galactic Civilizations isn’t about fighting long tactical battles."

They don't need to be long, but tactical is what makes battle fun you could also have an option that allow you to skip the visuals in case you don't want to watch or control anything and let the a.i. do it ( i am sure you have this already as most other games do)

but if you have that skip feature I think it should not matter either way if its long or not as we could skip it if we wanted to

but say we wanted to watch it and try out some things then we could engage the battle hands on

"We want to keep players engaged at the empire level and fighting for planets and systems, not in ship to ship combat."

--- It sounds to me here that you want to take more of the fun out of this game

Players will get bored fast if they are simply clicking about the empire map the whole time

-- they will want to immerse themselves into good combat every once in a while plain and simple its what makes a game fun

same thing with ground combat people would love to engage in ground combat every once in a while they want to feel the enemy crush beneath the might of there invasion force with shock troopers and tanks may be some tactical missile launchers

I made a post here

https://forums.galciv3.com/451675/page/1/#3438022

To the developers keep up the hard work me and my friends looking forward to see this

It may be just my interpretation, but the statement "Galactic Civilizations isn’t about fighting long tactical battles" does not mean GC is about fighting non-tactical games. It means that GC is about fighting short tactical battles.

Second statement just tells us that GC is primarily a strategy game. Not a tactical battle simulator. Which is what GC has always been all about. Naturally, if you want your battles to last for half an hour, you may be disappointed. With several battles per turn, it would destroy the game. There are a lot of members on these forums who do not want any player control over battles and no differences between a player-controlled battle or an automatically resolved one (which is exactly how GC handled things previously). I may not be a part of that group, but I can understand their concerns.

I have faith that SD would not let their game be reduced to battle manager, so I expect limited control over fleets in battle. This would let the player to be a general, a "guiding force", not a captain of each individual ship.

Mach, dude. What do you think the games are about? The space battles? They're a very small part of the game, sure they could take up a bit more of the stage and it sounds like they're going to, but The devs don't want them to detract from the empire management aspects. Personally I'm fine without any tactical battles at all. Keep it simple, Ship with strength, A and defence B battles another ship with strength C and defence D and let the dice roll. It works and it's still fun. If you want to add a little tactical element to the game, perhaps allow tactics from the map screen instead, so you see that an enemy ship is heading for one of your star-bases. If you intercept it head on you'll fight a pretty even battle, but if you use a faster ship and go around behind your enemy and attack from there you get a slight bonus in the fight maybe. Something like this is what I would like to see, not tedious moving of each ship during the engagements themselves.

You ever get the feeling that you're trapped in an endless loop of tactical combat threads?

Machiavellianism - the game is going to have some form of combat, with some kind of ship role system. It's not going to have a system where you pick ships each turn and tell them what to shoot at, but it's likely to be closer to Endless Space where you can watch the battles play out. At this point we're just waiting for a video or something to show how it's all going to work.

The main point of what they're saying is that this game is focused on the strategy layer, so that is where you spend most of your time. Making it a primary combat game moves the focus to the tactical layer, which isn't what they want to do. If you're primarily interested in a tactical game with some strategy elements, this probably isn't the game for you.

What was said in that interview wasn't new information. It was just reiterating what the devs have said for months, both on the forum and in interviews, so I really don't understand why you are suddenly worried about it.

--- It sounds to me here that you want to take more of the fun out of this game Players will get bored fast if they are simply clicking about the empire map the whole time -- they will want to immerse themselves into good combat every once in a while plain and simple its what makes a game fun

Please speak for yourself.

I like tactical combat. In fact, several of my favourite games have it. However, I don't want it in every game, because I would find that boring and monotonous. I also don't need it to find a game fun and entertaining.

--- It sounds to me here that you want to take more of the fun out of this game

I played Civilization 2 and 3 for years and never got bored. Neither of them had tactical combat. The fun part of Galciv games (for me) is the empire building and grand strategic decision making on a galactic scale.

There are already tons of strategy games out there where combat is the main focus. I'd rather Galciv remain true to it's current form, and I'd much rather have a choice in the style of games I play. If I want to play a game that focuses more on tactical battles, for example, I can play Sword of The Stars 2.

Anyway, I'm very happy with the direction that Stardock seems to be taking with regards to combat. Go team!

OT; I don't want to sound like a holier-than-thou jackass, but I don't think you know why people like this game.

Tactics are a very small part of the series, the main emphasis being placed upon grand strategy and management, alongside planning and inter-player interaction. Honestly, this is why I like GC2 over every other TBS, and why I paid a hundred freaking dollars for the third one without even seeing screenshots of it. Stardock did such a great job with the strategy, I love them for it, and I can put faith in them to deliver once more.

Having excessive tactical elements like space battles would detract far too much from the strategic aspects of the game and sully the experience for people like me who value the latter. I'm fine with some basic tactics, like fleet formations or whatever, but a full-blown tactical battle simulation would crap all over my experience. If you want a tactical battle simulator, go play Masters of Orion or Sword of the Stars; Galactic Civilizations is about thinking, not reacting.

One thing I don't understand. If you had options for different levels of combat that you could change at any time, such as:

Level 0 -- Absolute auto resolve

Level 1 -- Combat viewer -- like GC2.

Level 2 -- Some combat control -- like the devs have described for GC3.

'

'

Level x -- Ship by ship total control combat -- like MOO2.

If those that don't want tactical combat used level 0 and those that wanted the additional depth that tactical combat would provide used level x, where is the harm? How can that detract from either side's enjoyment? Why can't both sides have what they want? And why does one side seem so intent on trying to kill the other side's fun?

Personally, I don't think the timing is a big deal. I don't have to have it all in the base release. If it could be done for one of the expansions or DLCs, I would be happy.

Both battles (how they work and are calculated + shown in cinematics), and not at least warfare on the strategical level, is going to be more interesting then in any other space strategy ever. That's my impression so far.

Both battles (how they work and are calculated + shown in cinematics), and not at least warfare on the strategical level, is going to be more interesting then in any other space strategy ever. That's my impression so far.

Both battles (how they work and are calculated + shown in cinematics), and not at least warfare on the strategical level, is going to be more interesting then in any other space strategy ever. That's my impression so far.

And the replay value will be at least as immense as in GalCiv2. That means alot more replayability then in any other space strategy for my part at least.

If those that don't want tactical combat used level 0 and those that wanted the additional depth that tactical combat would provide used level x, where is the harm? How can that detract from either side's enjoyment? Why can't both sides have what they want? And why does one side seem so intent on trying to kill the other side's fun?

Personally, I don't think the timing is a big deal. I don't have to have it all in the base release. If it could be done for one of the expansions or DLCs, I would be happy.

If Stardock wasted their time doing something like this, that would be less time spent on the rest of the game. Even the "option" you want takes away from our fun. Deal with it.

Then of course there's the issue of "optional" combat being complete bullshit and everyone knowing it, but that's pretty obvious and doesn't need to be discussed again.

Tactical combat in MOO and MOO2 was the best part of the game. I really missed it in GalCiv 2 so I don't bought it because of tactical combat was missed. I really want to see tactical combat in GalCiv 3. It's a key element of game-play for me. I like to build unique ships build-plans and than use this ships to smash enemies by myself. In MOO2 it was really cool. And in GalCiv2 it wasn't. Hope it will in GalCiv 3.

Tactical combat in MOO and MOO2 was the best part of the game. I really missed it in GalCiv 2 so I don't bought it because of tactical combat was missed. I really want to see tactical combat in GalCiv 3. It's a key element of game-play for me. I like to build unique ships build-plans and than use this ships to smash enemies by myself. In MOO2 it was really cool. And in GalCiv2 it wasn't. Hope it will in GalCiv 3.

Gal Civ 3 is not going to be a game for you then. If tactical battles is the best part for you I would strongly suggest looking elsewhere.

One thing I don't understand. If you had options for different levels of combat that you could change at any time, such as:

Level 0 -- Absolute auto resolve

Level 1 -- Combat viewer -- like GC2.

Level 2 -- Some combat control -- like the devs have described for GC3.

'

'

Level x -- Ship by ship total control combat -- like MOO2.

If those that don't want tactical combat used level 0 and those that wanted the additional depth that tactical combat would provide used level x, where is the harm? How can that detract from either side's enjoyment? Why can't both sides have what they want? And why does one side seem so intent on trying to kill the other side's fun?

Personally, I don't think the timing is a big deal. I don't have to have it all in the base release. If it could be done for one of the expansions or DLCs, I would be happy.

Depends. Is there an infinite budget, staff count, and time to build the game?

If so, there is no harm at all.

If not, the resources to build x+1 combat modes has to come from somewhere. Since the strategy layer of the game is the game right now, it's going to come from there.

There's a reason why tactical focused games like Age of Wonders 2 have more simplistic empire & city systems than GalCiv does: AoW is focused more on the tactical combat. It does that well. The other stuff gets less attention and is there to support the combat, which is fine.

GalCiv (like Civ) is focused on the strategy layer, so those systems are more complicated and get more developer attention. Pulling people away from that to build a tactical combat system that's robust enough to appease the people wanting it will be to the detriment of everything else. That's just how development works in a world of limited people, time, and money.

GalCiv is a Strategy Game ..... its not a Tactical Combat Game, and this strikes to the very Core of the background game design. It is a big deal in terms of Core design at the lowest level of the software, and cannot be fudged. The priority must be to retain the Strategic Nature of the Game, and a focus on (circa) ship-to-ship fights as part of mainstream play and scoring is not it.

It looks as though they have come up with a *Half-Way House* - it sounds like an enhanced combat bo,x however that is visually presented, which would be fine. Ship to Ship (et al) tactical combat on (for example) the biggest size maps as part of the mainstream game would be a living hell - it is designed to be a Strategic Game not a Shoot-Em-Up.

It will be interesting to see what they have already come up with as the declared halfway house when the Alpha deploy's, but one thing is certain now, mainstream tactical combat at individual ship/man/weapons level having a direct impact on the Game Scoring and Outcome, will not be happening - its a Strategic Game, not a tactical Bun Fight.

OK. I already get and agree with most of what is being said here, with one where I disagree.

What I agree with:

1) Time for development is critical, especially when a total re-write is being done.

2) Keeping the nature and flavor of the game must have first priority in a total re-write, and this takes time and effort.

3) Modernization of the game mechanics is key to extending the popularity of the game -- that is, incorporating use of new hardware capabilities gives the game a fresh new feel.

4) Adding depth to the many features of the game adds substantially to the game's appeal. This is being done, we are told, with diplomacy, alignment, unit capabilities (both combat and non-combat), some added depth in combat, colony control, empire economy, start of game functions, perhaps some existing features we have not heard about yet, and even some improvement in combat. These also take time and resources.

The management, I think, has done a good job of evaluating what can be done within a reasonable time and will, I expect, stick to their plan.

What I don't agree with:

The idea that tactical combat has no place in a strategy game. My opinion is that when a strategy game includes tactical combat, it can, and must, be done in a way that adds depth to the game without impacting the game's main focus. We already have an example of this with the addition of the Ship Designer and fleets in GC2. It was seen by many fans as an added complication that could only degrade the appeal of the game, but the devs did a real good job of implementing it, and the result was an increase in depth to the game.

Did you know that the GC for OS2 series gave us control of individual ships when invading a star? It may not have been particularly robust, but it was what the technology could support at the time. It was, however, somewhat like the tactical combat many of us have been asking for. That got lost at least by the time GC2 for Windows added fleets and planet level attacks and invasions.

Another example is the CIV series of games, which is definitely a strategy set of games, which includes tactical combat. It also does it well, maintaining strategy as its main focus, and providing the brief bits of tactical combat to alleviate the long stretch of long, hard, repetitive strategic maneuvering. It adds depth to the game. And, yes, this is also true of MOO2. None of these games are Duke Nuke'ems, and the tactical combat portion of these games is not the end-all do-all of these strategy games. But it does add depth to the Civ series and to Moo2.

To round this out, I think we all agree that the devs must focus on the re-write, and that they can't spend much time adding huge new features, I see this as a given. What I would like the devs to keep in mind, however, is that there is a demand for full tactical combat as a feature that adds depth to the game in future work such as expansions, DLCs, or even GalCiv4. And what I see on this forum makes me think I am not alone in this wish.

OK. I already get and agree with most of what is being said here, with one where I disagree.

What I agree with:

1) Time for development is critical, especially when a total re-write is being done.

2) Keeping the nature and flavor of the game must have first priority in a total re-write, and this takes time and effort.

3) Modernization of the game mechanics is key to extending the popularity of the game -- that is, incorporating use of new hardware capabilities gives the game a fresh new feel.

4) Adding depth to the many features of the game adds substantially to the game's appeal. This is being done, we are told, with diplomacy, alignment, unit capabilities (both combat and non-combat), some added depth in combat, colony control, empire economy, start of game functions, perhaps some existing features we have not heard about yet, and even some improvement in combat. These also take time and resources.

The management, I think, has done a good job of evaluating what can be done within a reasonable time and will, I expect, stick to their plan.

What I don't agree with:

The idea that tactical combat has no place in a strategy game. My opinion is that when a strategy game includes tactical combat, it can, and must, be done in a way that adds depth to the game without impacting the game's main focus. We already have an example of this with the addition of the Ship Designer and fleets in GC2. It was seen by many fans as an added complication that could only degrade the appeal of the game, but the devs did a real good job of implementing it, and the result was an increase in depth to the game.

Did you know that the GC for OS2 series gave us control of individual ships when invading a star? It may not have been particularly robust, but it was what the hardware and software technology could support at the time. It was, however, somewhat like the tactical combat many of us have been asking for. That got lost at least by the time GC2 for Windows added fleets and planet level attacks and invasions.

Another example is the CIV series of games, which is definitely a strategy set of games, which includes tactical combat. It also does it well, maintaining strategy as its main focus, and providing the brief bits of tactical combat to alleviate the long stretch of long, hard, repetitive strategic maneuvering. It adds depth to the game. And, yes, this is also true of MOO2. None of these games are Duke Nuke'ems, and the tactical combat portion of these games is not the end-all do-all of these strategy games. But it does add depth to the Civ series and to Moo2.

To round this out, I think we all agree that the devs must focus on the re-write, and that they can't spend much time adding huge new features, I see this as a given. What I would like the devs to keep in mind, however, is that there is a demand for full tactical combat as a feature that adds depth to the game in future work such as expansions, DLCs, or even GalCiv4. And what I see on this forum makes me think I am not alone in this wish.

One thing I don't understand. If you had options for different levels of combat that you could change at any time, such as:

Level 0 -- Absolute auto resolve

Level 1 -- Combat viewer -- like GC2.

Level 2 -- Some combat control -- like the devs have described for GC3.

'

'

Level x -- Ship by ship total control combat -- like MOO2.

If those that don't want tactical combat used level 0 and those that wanted the additional depth that tactical combat would provide used level x, where is the harm? How can that detract from either side's enjoyment? Why can't both sides have what they want? And why does one side seem so intent on trying to kill the other side's fun?

Personally, I don't think the timing is a big deal. I don't have to have it all in the base release. If it could be done for one of the expansions or DLCs, I would be happy.

If I ever see a game where auto-resolve and manual tactical combat are properly balanced, so that I do not feel I am risking a worse outcome by using the former, I will eat a sandwich using ham solely taken from flying pigs.

And until that time, adding tactical combat is basically screwing over the people - arguably the more important part of the customer base - who prefer GalCiv's combat as it is.

I don't think anybody here has ever actually said that; most (including myself) old the position that it is poorly suited to this series in particular. The examples you mentioned (90's Era GalCiv, MoO, Civ) did not/do not have the same sort of strategic depth as Galactic Civilizations 2, with very minor exceptions (MoO 2's attributes, for example). They also operate/d with much smaller game worlds and took less time to code and develop for.

I really like tactical games (World in Conflict, Command and Conquer, Sword of the Stars), and I also like 4X games which are primarily about eXterminate, with TBS/RTS elements to support that (Sins of a Solar Empire, Master of Orion, Gratuitous Space Battles), but Galactic Civilizations is a series better left untouched by the ideas of small-scale combat.

I feel very strongly about this; I don't mind some very basic stuff like fleet formations and weapon variations, but anything more is really pushing it. If you disagree, and I hate to say this, you're probably better off playing another game.

I don't think anybody here has ever actually said that; most (including myself) old the position that it is poorly suited to this series in particular. The examples you mentioned (90's Era GalCiv, MoO, Civ) did not/do not have the same sort of strategic depth as Galactic Civilizations 2, with very minor exceptions (MoO 2's attributes, for example). They also operate/d with much smaller game worlds and took less time to code and develop for.

Maybe nobody has said it in this thread, but people have said it. The phrase "shoot-em-up" is kind of a joke around here because of that sentiment.

It's also better not to have tactical battles than poorly implemented ones. I think this is what playing the Elemental series taught me: it cured me from my need for tactical battles in every game of the genre.

Also, tactical battles are a development resource drain. Look at Sword of the Stars II: the tactical battle, based on a decent system, are still suffering from an utterly incompetent military AI, and the rest of the game reaches impressive levels of awful. Implementing the tactical battles and everything that comes with it ended up taking too much time and money for the game to work as a whole.

Stardock seems to have gone for the Endless Space approach, and it's a lot harder to botch (although I hope they do it a bit better than Amplitude Studios), so I strongly support this decision.